Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1955 (HP)

Union of India v. Lal Singh Thakur

2015-12-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 03.12.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 421 of 2005, titled Lal Singh & others versus Union of India & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, was allowed, impugned Annexures P-6, P-8, P-9, P- 10 and P-12, were quashed and consequential reliefs were granted to the writ petitioners, which they had earned in terms of the judgment dated 21.08.1997, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 404 of 1995, titled Lal Singh Thakur & others versus Union of India & others, for short ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. The writ petitioners were appointed as Sub- Inspectors vide different orders. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 404 of 1995, had issued seniority list, which was affecting the interests of the petitioners. The petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of CWP No. 404 of 1995, for grant of five reliefs. Vide judgment dated 21.08.1997, this Court allowed the writ petition. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “13. As we have already pointed out the petitioners are seniors to the Respondents No. 4 to 26 as per the seniority list dated 30.11.1978, it should be the relevant seniority list for considering the promotions of the petitioners as against Respondents No. 4 to 26. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to revise the present seniority list pertaining to the higher posts, namely the posts of Inspector, Company Commander and Deputy Commander. 14. To make the matter clear, Annexure P- 4 is declared null and void in the eyes of law. The petitioners will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs”. 3. After noticing the aforesaid judgment, the respondents had complied with the directions and granted all the benefits to the petitioners, vide order dated 9th June, 1999. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9th June, 1999, writ respondent No. 3 had approached the Gauhati High Court, by the medium of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2001. The Gauhati High Court had disposed of the writ petition, vide judgment dated 8th January, 2002. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9th June, 1999, writ respondent No. 3 had approached the Gauhati High Court, by the medium of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2001. The Gauhati High Court had disposed of the writ petition, vide judgment dated 8th January, 2002. It is apt to reproduce the operative part of the said judgment herein:- “In that view of the matter, no effective decision could be arrived at fixing the seniority position of the petitioner vis-à-vis the aforesaid 3 incumbents. But it appears that the petitioner’s already fixed seniority position in the below rank (in the post of Coy, Commander) had been disturbed detriment to the interest of the petitioner unheard and as such I am constrained to direct that the name of Hemraj Sharma, Ramlal Sirtaj, Lal Singh Thakur as available at Sr. No. 8, 9 & 10 and the name of the petitioner S. Yaiskul Singh as available in Sl No. 43 of the seniority list published in 1988 for the post of Coy. Commanded be off listed from the said seniority list and the seniority position of the petitioner and aforesaid 3 incumbents namely, Hemraj Sharma, Ram Lal Sirtaj and Lal Singh Thakur be refixed after allowing all of them reasonable opportunity of being heard and that must be done within a period of forty five days from today.” 5. It appears that in terms of the direction passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2001, the respondents had examined the representation of the petitioner-writ respondent No. 3 and passed Annexures P-6, P-8, P-9, P-10 and P-12, which have been questioned by respondents No. 1 to 3, by the medium of CWP No. 421 of 2005, subject matter of this LPA. 6. The question is - can the writ respondents-appellants herein, reverse the order dated 9th June, 1999, made by them, in compliance to the judgment dated 21.08.1997, supra, when the judgment has attained finality? The answer is in the negative for the following reason. 7. Apparently, order dated 09.06.1999 had been passed in compliance to the judgment dated 21.08.1997. The appellants are not within their power to sit over the judgment made by this Court and reverse the order passed by them. The answer is in the negative for the following reason. 7. Apparently, order dated 09.06.1999 had been passed in compliance to the judgment dated 21.08.1997. The appellants are not within their power to sit over the judgment made by this Court and reverse the order passed by them. The High Court of Gauhati has not determined the issues and rights inter-se the parties, but directed the respondents to re-fix the seniority position of the petitioner and the three incumbents, namely, Hemraj Sharma, Ram Lal Sirtaj and Lal Singh Thakur, after allowing all of them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Having said so, the Writ Court has rightly made the impugned judgment, is legal one and requires no interference. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.